SADHNA SHARMA Vs. PREMLATA GAUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as well as rendition of accounts. Shri Raghvanand Gautam is stated to be the grand-father of the plaintiffs i.e. plaintiffs' mother's father. Out of love and affection, he had executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiffs dated 22nd September, 1962 gifting land measuring 500 sq.yds. in Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. During the period between 1967 and 1973, the plaintiffs were residing alongwith their great grand parents namely Smt.Krishna Gautam and Shri Raghvanand Gautam and grand parents Smt.Shakuntala Atrishi and B.N. Atrishi at 108, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. Shri Raghvanand Gautam had no son, however, he brought up Shri P.S. Gautam, who was husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 to 5, from a very young age. The plaintiffs attained majority only after the death of said grand father. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiffs came to know that defendants 1 to 5 are fraudulently trying to dispose of property No.107-A, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi which belongs to the plaintiffs, without their consent and approval. It is further alleged that defendant No.1 propounded the Will dated 6th August, 1973 alleged to have been executed by Shri Raghavanand Gautam, which is a forged and fabricated document in favour of the defendant No.1.

(2.) On these facts, plaintiffs filed the present suit praying for decree of declaration that they are the absolute owner of property No.107-A, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi and that the Will dated 6th August, 1973 alleged to have been executed, is null and void and the defendants be restrained from selling, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession, transferring or creating any third party interest in the property in question.

(3.) The suit was being contested by the defendants on different grounds wherein they had taken preliminary objection as regards to maintainability of the suit, as well as denied the averments made on behalf of the plaintiffs. Different written statements were filed on behalf of the defendants.